On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, "Mustaffa, Mustamin B" <mustamin.b.mustaffa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Jani, > > I able to figure out using intel_dp structure instead of dev_priv. > > Should I continue using dev_priv or intel_dp? > > - int backlight_controller = dev_priv->vbt.backlight.controller; > + int backlight_controller = intel_dp->attached_connector->panel.backlight.controller; Point was, connector->panel.backlight.controller gets initialized in intel_panel_setup_backlight() which is called much later than intel_dp_pps_init() in intel_edp_init_connector(). BR, Jani. > > Best regard > > Mustamin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jani Nikula [mailto:jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 11:53 PM > To: Mustaffa, Mustamin B <mustamin.b.mustaffa@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/bxt: Enable VBT based BL control for DP (v2) > > On Fri, 09 Feb 2018, "Mustaffa, Mustamin B" <mustamin.b.mustaffa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> May I know why the need to use connector as connector wasn't >> initialized in parent function ' intel_pps_get_registers'? > > Oh, right, I overlooked that. > >> While ' dev_priv' already initialized which also already initialized >> to the VBT value. So it make sense to me to use 'dev_priv' structure >> to read the VBT value instead of connector. > > Okay, I think the right thing to do in the long run is to refactor the code to initialize the value in the connector earlier. We'll want to use the VBT only for initialization once. But for now, I think this is fine. Please rebase the patch against current upstream so we get fresh CI results, and resend. > > Thanks, > Jani. > > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
